whos alf?

And are you telling these people that orbs are just as real as an imaginary...something?

....I don't know whats happening over here anymore, but I take the side that orbs are not dust/snow/rain/camera errors....and I'm not saying that they are ghost energy, but that I think is the best possibility...

ORBS ARE FAKE>>>ARRGHHH

Okay I have a mixed view on this. I think many "orbs" are cause by lense flare, dust, bugs, etc. But I do think that many "orbs" are caused by electricity, there is no proof yet however that this electricity is related to ghosts.

Sorry if that's really confusing.

Just for the record, that's not exactly true. Glasses, and even combinations of glasses and contact lenses, cannot always correct a person's vision to 20/20. When a person's vision cannot be corrected to at least a certain point (20/200 maybe? Not at all sure on that) they are considered blind.

I have to admit, though, that I've never found orbs particularly impressive. Lee77, however, brought up an interesting point.


Does anyone have any idea how long something has to be visible in order to register on the naked eye? Some ghost photographs are taken when people present see nothing. Sometimes people see something and take pictures that reveal nothing. Sometimes the images that are captured seem solid, sometimes transparent.

I've been wondering if "ghosts" such as these might sort of "strobe" in and out of existence. For the purpose of explaining my idea, I'm going to say these ghosts go through two phases, (+) when they are visible and (-) when they are not. If the rate of fluctuation between the (+) and (-) is fast enough, they might appear solid to the human eye, however their appearance and solidity on film would be dependant on how closely their (+) phase coincided with the time when the film was exposed. In addition, a "ghost" that only went through one or two (+) phases might show up on film that happened to be exposed at the right time without being noticed by the naked eye.

Does that make sense?

Also, the degree of solidity of ghosts on film might have more to do with how closely their (+) phase matched the camera's exposure than any intrinsic solidity of the ghost itself. In this theory, transparent ghosts would simply be underexposed.

This is of course, only a theory, but I think it's possible and, if it could be somehow validated, it might open other avenues for research.

I'm sure you remember Alf.



He was saying that they aren't real, although that wasen't a good comparison. He could have said orbs are as real as a three-legged, man/dog/elepant mix with wings.

Thank god another person who is in reality! I have been saying this for a while now but in less technical terms and to deaf ears most of the time. Of course there are other causes too i.e dust, moisture.. yada yada.

Bravo!

thank you elfstone for explaining what i thought everyone would have thought in the first place, how can you say that all cases of orbs are lens flare?? thats ridiculous

I think I'm confused. What did I explain?

about the (+) (-) thing, where they may just blip into our realm and back out, and we just sometimes catch it on film, thats what i was trying to get at ,but you explained it much better, the 2nd half of my post was rhetorical for the ones who believe such a case

orbs are fake...whos with me on this? come on lets debunk it when we can. RIVEL UP AGAINST THE EASY-GOERS AND PROVE THEIR SILLY DREAMS WRONG!!!-eat snacky smores-
ps.
orbs arnt real. esp. orbs with faces...only in clayfighter...CLAYFIGHTER mind you

Technically they're not fake, Mr. FS, but simply 'missunderstood'. I was trying to think of a better word, but couldn't. While i think it's laughable that people think these are floating lost souls or the like, they exist, they're just sunflares, dust particles or the like.
Either way, i'm 100% with you.

couldnt have said it better dude, yes they are real,but not dead people, mysterious spirits..jsut bad camera workers.. AHH

haha lets all forget orbs and go here... this is the best topic ever...no your wrong this is the best topic. period.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...&st=0&p=409157&

IamFS, like you, I know orbs are fake and wish we could put a stop to this nonsense once and for all. Although no “orb” has ever been photographed partially obscured by a tombstone, tree limb or whatever, people still claim they have such photos when, actually, the transparency of the orb only makes it appear to be partially obscured. I have found that by inverting the colors of these photos and enlarging them, it becomes evident the “orb” is, in fact, in the foreground (i.e., close to the camera).

Additionally, the fact the first individuals to claim “orbs” are ghosts are a pair of uneducated losers should make people think twice before swallowing their theories, hook, line and "orb."

Okay, guys, I agree. So orbs are fake. But in my post about the whole (+) (-) thing I wasn't talking about orbs. I was talking about things like the Tulip Staircase picture, the Watertown picture, the Brown Lady of Raynam Hall, etc. I've had this theory for a long time but I don't know enough about the technical details of photography to know if it's possible or to have any ideas about testing it. If it were able to be demonstrated it would open up other avenues for investigation. For example we could then try to determine the whether "ghosts" all oscillate between (+) and (-) at the same frequency. Perhaps we could even determine whether they are matter (reflecting light) or energy (producing light).

(Of course, this is an entirely technical line of inquiry which does not even BEGIN to address any of the questions of a spiritual or religious nature that arise when ghosts are discussed. That wouldn't be the point.)

Does anyone understand what I'm talking about???? :/

Elfstone, I don’t see how anyone could ever answer your questions because all images of ghosts aren’t the same. Some appear as flesh and blood human beings; others appear as shadows; some are barely visible; some seem to “shine,” and others don’t appear at all, but make noise. Obviously, these “ghosts” aren’t all the same so they cannot be placed in a single category.

Both the Brown Lady of Raynham Hall and Tulip Staircase Ghost were substantive enough to be captured on film. People who have encountered the Brown Lady when there were no bright, blinding lights around describe her as slightly transparent. The reason she is such a frightening apparition is because she has no eyes, only dark holes where the eyes should be.

There is a theory that the reason some ghosts appear “real” while others are merely shadows is because they fade over the passing years. However, if one believes in reincarnation, then the spirit of a dead person would only be able to appear until it [the spirit] was reborn as another human being. Maybe this is the reason some ghosts are seen for only a short period of time (weeks or a few years) while others hang around for centuries.

Not all flares make the picture bad. They're actually pretty cool when you insert a lens flare into photo shop.

Yes, I know all that. I'm talking specifically about ghosts that are caught on film. As has been said repeatedly in this thread, the camera is not magic. For it to catch something there has to be something there -- either a light source or a solid object capable of reflecting light. My theory is quite specific -- that these things, be they objects or images, oscillate. This would explain why they are sometimes photgraphed without being seen, why they sometimes are seen but do not appear on a photograph, and why they appear, at least on film, in varying degrees of transparency.

It also would not be out of line with the theory that ghosts "run down" over time. For example, perhaps some ghosts, either because they're recent or because they are located in a place where the conditions are favorable, have more power. These might oscillate at a faster frequency, appearing more solid and being easier to capture on film. Others, having less energy, would either oscillate more slowly or for a shorter length of time.

Perhaps what we see as ghosts (some ghosts -- I am well aware that there are probably many different kinds of ghosts and many different explanations for their appearances) are a natural phenomenon like lightning. A charge builds up in some way and when the conditions are right it is spent in a burst of energy that produces a visible and/or audible ghost.

I am just wondering if anyone knows any way to test this theory.

WRONG!!! this is the one of the most ignorant pieces of skeptisism ive ever heard

look into it more mate have you ever noticed how ghosthunters catch orbs on camcorder aswell and they move,pulsate,flash change direction and in some cases have faces in them.

there short clips but watch the celcreuch investigation video files on this website www.ghostfinders.co.uk

the flare in those photos looks nothing like orbs and i somehow dont think someone investigating the paranormal would not know about lens flare,i also find it a bit annoying when im being attacked by swarms of insects or standing in a room full of dust.

What are you calling WRONG?

I hope someone else knows what you are attempting to say because I certainly don't.

Orbs with faces? Now I've heard everything!

lee and burn side are right. orbs are nothign more then childspaly of a big imagination..wanna see real ghosts? come to my house on xmas! BORING